(1) What crime and intentional tort is clause 2B (Limitation of Authority) tryin g to prevent?

Clause 2B is attempting to prevent the crime/intentional tort of embezzlement. B y limiting the the amount of money that a contract or a hire can be made with wi thout permission, the employer can prevent the Superintendent from using his pos ition to make contracts to others in order to siphon funds away from the busines s. (2) Assume the new Superintendent hires a groundskeeper without conducting a bac kground check. The groundskeeper has a conviction of attempted rape, which the Superintendent would have known about had he done a background check. A few wee ks later, the groundskeeper rapes a member. The state courts have found a duty for employers to use due care in selecting only competent employees. (2A) Would the Superintendent be liable for negligence? Explain. The Superintendent would indeed be liable for negligence due to the fact that th e Superintendent meets all 4 requirements of negligence. The four requirements b eing that there was duty to the plaintiff imposed on the defendant, the defendan t breached that duty by not conducting a background check, this misstep caused the incident, and the plaintiff definately suffered damages (getting raped.) As it's considered protocol to hire competent employees, this should have been a ba sic action done by the defendant in his job requirements. (2B) Would Greenway, as the employer, be liable for negligence under respondeat superior? Explain. Greenway would be held liable as well as respondeat superior causes the employer to be responsible for that actions of the employee, defined as "A common-law do ctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the act ions take place within the scope of employment." ("Respondeat superior legal," ) As the negligent behavior of not conducting a background check was due to the d efendant's actions, the employer would also be held liable under respondeat supe rior. (2C) Does the contract address this issue? Explain. The contract has a section, labeled "6. Termination" clause C, which refers to t he case where the Superintendent is unable to properly fulfill the duties listed in the contract, as well as dereliction of duty and more. The contract addresse s that the Superintendent could be terminated in a case such as the one given as an example. (3) Assume the new Superintendent develops a safety program per clause F5 (Bonus Compensation) for the restaurant (mentioned in clause 4 Benefits). He calls Gr ills-R-Use and speaks with the owner. He explains that many members will use th e grills each day. The owner states, We build and sell grills that can handle 10 0 uses per day for 365 days a year without problem. The Superintendent buys the grills based on the owner s statement. Two days later, one of the grills melts fr om heat overuse and injuries a member. (3A) Can the Superintendent successfully use the theory of warranties for produc t liability in a lawsuit against Grills-R-Us? Explain. The Superintendent could sue using the theory of warranties as the seller claime d that the product held to a certain standard, that of being reliable and durabl e throughout the year, and yet they were damaged after only two days. While it i sn't stated that the heat overuse was from using it more than 100 times, or if t he product was unable to hold up to minimal use, regardless the product didn't h old to the assurance given after the Superintendent gave the scenario that the g rills would be used for. Also, while there was no written warranty, the product was sold to fulfill a particular purpose, the concept of warranty of fitness app lies. A warranty of fitness "implicitly warrants that the goods will be fit for the buyer's particular purpose" (Emerson, 462)

(3B) Can the Superintendent successfully use the theory of negligence for produc t liability in a lawsuit against Grills-R-Us? Explain. The malfunction of the grill would most definately be considered valid for the t heory of neglience for product liability. Considering that grills are a product that are considered to be designed to handle heat constantly, especially if they were designed for the volume of uses suggested by the Superintendent. This theo ry works well with the theory of warranties, as the owner of Grills-R-Use's clai m correlates with the buyer's expectations and assumptions of the product's capa bilities. The most important factor is detirmine if the company, Grills-R-Us, wa s careless in it's creation, which would seem to be the case so far as the limit ations of the grills. (3C) Can the Superintendent successfully use the theory of strict liability for product liability in a lawsuit against Grills-R-Us? Explain. The theory of strict liability wouldn't apply in a lawsuit due to the fact that there was nothing about the grills that made them different from what the plaint iff would expect, rather, they weren't up to the standard that the plaintiff had requested which takes the theory of strict liability out of the options that th e Superintendent would have for suing. (3D) If the member sues, is Greenway liable for the contract between the Superin tendent and Grills-R-Us? Explain. Unless the Superintendent either caused the injury, or knowingly purchased a def ective product, Greenway wouldn't be able to be sued by the member. The member w ould be able to sue Grills-R-Us however as they would definately have a greater stake then the Superintendent/Greenway to pursue a court case. As long as the Su perintendent isn't found liable, Greenway won't be liable as respondeat superior won't apply in that scenario. (4) Assume the Superintendent s wife becomes seriously ill. He requests 7 weeks l eave under FMLA. (4A) Does this statute require Greenway to give him back his position when he re turns? Explain. As long as the Superintendent has been working for Greenway for at least 12 mont hs, the Superintendent is protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act as lo ng as his leave is for 12 or less weeks as well as other factors like hours work ed and more. Greenway is considered a company where the the statute holds due to it's number of employees. (4B) Does the contract address this issue? Explain. From my examination, the contract only addresses sick leave in which the Superin tendent gets 90 days to recover and get back to working. The employer may have p ossibly just considered the statute, FMLA, to be fine enough to cover the possib ility of the Superintendent having to take urgent personal leave for family. (5) Assume that the Superintendent refers 250 new members to Greenway. He is pa id the bonus per clause F3 (Bonus Compensation). It is later discovered that al l the 250 new members are Hispanic. Does Title VII apply to the Superintendent s actions? Explain. In order for Title VII to apply, the practice in question has to be discriminato ry either for or against a group or person for race, gender, religion, etc. Whil e strange or suspect, the referral of 250 new members of hispanic origin, should n't affect the paid bonus from clause F3. (6) List two potential problems that could occur based on the wording of the con tract. Include the clause letter/number (so I know what you are referring to). In clause 2c, it states that if the Superintendent is unable to report to the de signated party, then the Superintendent must report to the other designated part

y. The issue with this wording of the contract, it has nothing listed as the act ion to take if both parties listed are unavailable, only listing that the Superi ntendent is to only have one direct superior at any time. In clause 2I, it state s that "The SUPERINTENDENT is encouraged to participate in community and civic a ffairs of the golf course. The membership and direct expenses of such membership s and activities shall be paid by the EMPLOYER as permitted by law and approved by the EMPLOYER." The compensation for the participation may be able to be abuse d as the Superintendent could create superflous events, take advantage of existi ng events, or waste the club's resources for the expenses to just be compensated . Emerson, R. W. (2009). Business law. Hauppauge, N.Y: Barron's Respondeat superior legal definition. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://legal-dictio nary.thefreedictionary.com/Respondeat Superior